3 ms·
The thing is, working with the contributor to guide them to write a specific patch entirely different from what they did is a lot of work, and quite frankly rea
by arghwhat 3y ago
The thing is, working with the contributor to guide them to write a specific patch entirely different from what they did is a lot of work, and quite frankly really awkward for both parties. And at that point, it is no longer the contributors patch. The maintainer authored it in its entirety, and the contributor slapped their name on it.
It should also be noted that by sending to security@, you trigger a machine optimized for getting fix merged fast to protect the user base - not one optimized for teaching new contributors.
- darkwater 3y ago> It should also be noted that by sending to security@, you trigger a machine optimized for getting fix merged fast to protect the user base - not one optimized for teaching new contributors. This is the crux of the issue, and that generated a mismatch of expectations vs reality. If it went through LKML I'm pretty sure someone would have guided him to have a patch accepted and fully authored by OP. As an external observer, however, I empathize and sympathize with OP.
- throeaaysn 3y ago[dead]
- jacquesm 3y agoThis is exactly the problem. By doing this with a security issue you are essentially going to have to be happy to see the problem fixed, regardless of whether or not it has your name on it because the maintainer has more to do than to tutor you until you 'get it right'. There are other more suitable venues for this.